874
Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeats 15-term incumbent in Colorado House primary
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
874 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30278 readers
2167 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So printing a pro-russian piece is just good balance right?
It's not a pro-russian piece.
Throughout every paragraph, the author makes sideways jabs at Russia intended to make clear that it's a war that they started, and that Ukraine is defending itself.
Their only point, which is the point that you're contending with, is that Ukraine should still maintain the moral high ground by minimizing civilian casualties.
Literally, from the article you cited:
That doesn't sound pro-russian...
And yet. What does the letter call out? Russian attacks on civilians? (Don’t you dare say yes because it’s obliquely referenced. That is not how it works.)
Russia isn’t spending hundreds of millions of dollars every single year to bring reasoned debate into the world. They’re doing it to accomplish what Cambridge Analytica proved without a doubt: convince 50.1% of the voters that something outrageous “sounds” true and nothing else matters.
You can continue to throw the third largest military (by budget) against the 43rd largest (in 2021, before the genocide started) and professors in Southampton can express qualms over the danger of unintentional casualties in the aggressor nation. Sure! RUN THAT BABY. We need to publish more garbage that keeps this thing going.
Yeah... as I've already pointed out, yes, they do call that out. And you trying to preempt me by calling that "oblique" doesn't change that.
Literally the whole argument is "Ukraine shouldn't tarnish its moral high ground in its defensive retaliations by indiscriminately targeting civilians they way russia does to them in the war that russia started."
His word choice may have been hamfisted in places, but that is not what russian propaganda sounds like.
And they're not doing that to post opinion pieces in The Guardian, either. They're funding troll farms where people make disingenuous arguments like what you're doing. Literally the shit you're saying is exactly how that stuff sounds.
Sometimes it's even so convoluted that I wouldn't be surprised if you're claiming "Minimize civilian casualties" is a pro-russian statement, specifically to shame Ukraine-supporters into saying "Nah, fuck those civilians" just so that russia has something to point to and say "See, I told you they're evil aggressors!" and tarnish that moral high ground that the author discussed.
I certainly don't think the kremlin would give a fuck if their disinfo gets more russian civilians killed, if they think it will gain them more leverage over negotiations or worldwide public opinion.
At best - okay, granting a ludicrous amount of good intent - at best that’s a delusional position from someone who hasn’t been near weapons fire in decades if ever. What does our illustrious professor think WAR is? Huuh! Good gawd, y’all.
I never said I agree with his position in its entirety. I even called it hamfisted in places. I think the three opposing opinions in the other piece I linked were much better.
But that doesn't change the fact that the original was not a pro-russian piece, and the guardian is not a pro-russian outlet; nor a billionaire-sponsored media outlet, to bring this discussion back to where it started before you led us down this trail of red herrings.